Cargando…

A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria

BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of awareness around the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) procedural criteria for brain death and the surrounding controversies, leading to significant practice variability. This survey study assessed for existing knowledge and attitude among healthcare professiona...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chatterjee, Krishanu, Rady, Mohamed Y., Verheijde, Joseph L., Butterfield, Richard J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8442138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33618577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885066620985827
_version_ 1783752961677066240
author Chatterjee, Krishanu
Rady, Mohamed Y.
Verheijde, Joseph L.
Butterfield, Richard J.
author_facet Chatterjee, Krishanu
Rady, Mohamed Y.
Verheijde, Joseph L.
Butterfield, Richard J.
author_sort Chatterjee, Krishanu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of awareness around the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) procedural criteria for brain death and the surrounding controversies, leading to significant practice variability. This survey study assessed for existing knowledge and attitude among healthcare professionals regarding procedural criteria and potential change after an educational intervention. METHODS: Healthcare professionals with increased exposure to brain injury at Mayo Clinic hospitals in Arizona and Florida were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 2 iterations of a 14-item questionnaire, taken before and after a 30-minute video educational intervention. The questionnaire gathered participants’ opinion of (1) their knowledge of the AAN procedural criteria, (2) whether these criteria determine complete, irreversible cessation of brain function, and (3) on what concept of death they base the equivalence of brain death to biological death. RESULTS: Of the 928 people contacted, a total of 118 and 62 participants completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaire, respectively. The results show broad, unchanging support for the concept of brain death (86.8%) and that current criteria constitute best practice. While 64.9% agree further that the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breathing is sufficient for death, contradictorily, 37.6% believe the loss of additional integrated bodily functions such as fighting infection is necessary for death. A plurality trusts these criteria to demonstrate loss of brain function that is irreversible (67.6%) and complete (43.6%) at baseline, but there is significantly less agreement on both at post-intervention. CONCLUSION: Although there is consistent support that AAN procedural criteria are best for clinical practice, results show a tenuous belief that these criteria determine irreversible and complete loss of all brain function. Despite support for the concept of brain death first developed by the President’s Council, participants demonstrate confusion over whether the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breath are truly sufficient for death.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8442138
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84421382021-09-16 A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria Chatterjee, Krishanu Rady, Mohamed Y. Verheijde, Joseph L. Butterfield, Richard J. J Intensive Care Med Original Research BACKGROUND: There remains a lack of awareness around the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) procedural criteria for brain death and the surrounding controversies, leading to significant practice variability. This survey study assessed for existing knowledge and attitude among healthcare professionals regarding procedural criteria and potential change after an educational intervention. METHODS: Healthcare professionals with increased exposure to brain injury at Mayo Clinic hospitals in Arizona and Florida were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 2 iterations of a 14-item questionnaire, taken before and after a 30-minute video educational intervention. The questionnaire gathered participants’ opinion of (1) their knowledge of the AAN procedural criteria, (2) whether these criteria determine complete, irreversible cessation of brain function, and (3) on what concept of death they base the equivalence of brain death to biological death. RESULTS: Of the 928 people contacted, a total of 118 and 62 participants completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaire, respectively. The results show broad, unchanging support for the concept of brain death (86.8%) and that current criteria constitute best practice. While 64.9% agree further that the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breathing is sufficient for death, contradictorily, 37.6% believe the loss of additional integrated bodily functions such as fighting infection is necessary for death. A plurality trusts these criteria to demonstrate loss of brain function that is irreversible (67.6%) and complete (43.6%) at baseline, but there is significantly less agreement on both at post-intervention. CONCLUSION: Although there is consistent support that AAN procedural criteria are best for clinical practice, results show a tenuous belief that these criteria determine irreversible and complete loss of all brain function. Despite support for the concept of brain death first developed by the President’s Council, participants demonstrate confusion over whether the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breath are truly sufficient for death. SAGE Publications 2021-02-22 2021-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8442138/ /pubmed/33618577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885066620985827 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Chatterjee, Krishanu
Rady, Mohamed Y.
Verheijde, Joseph L.
Butterfield, Richard J.
A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria
title A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria
title_full A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria
title_fullStr A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria
title_full_unstemmed A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria
title_short A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria
title_sort framework for revisiting brain death: evaluating awareness and attitudes toward the neuroscientific and ethical debate around the american academy of neurology brain death criteria
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8442138/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33618577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885066620985827
work_keys_str_mv AT chatterjeekrishanu aframeworkforrevisitingbraindeathevaluatingawarenessandattitudestowardtheneuroscientificandethicaldebatearoundtheamericanacademyofneurologybraindeathcriteria
AT radymohamedy aframeworkforrevisitingbraindeathevaluatingawarenessandattitudestowardtheneuroscientificandethicaldebatearoundtheamericanacademyofneurologybraindeathcriteria
AT verheijdejosephl aframeworkforrevisitingbraindeathevaluatingawarenessandattitudestowardtheneuroscientificandethicaldebatearoundtheamericanacademyofneurologybraindeathcriteria
AT butterfieldrichardj aframeworkforrevisitingbraindeathevaluatingawarenessandattitudestowardtheneuroscientificandethicaldebatearoundtheamericanacademyofneurologybraindeathcriteria
AT chatterjeekrishanu frameworkforrevisitingbraindeathevaluatingawarenessandattitudestowardtheneuroscientificandethicaldebatearoundtheamericanacademyofneurologybraindeathcriteria
AT radymohamedy frameworkforrevisitingbraindeathevaluatingawarenessandattitudestowardtheneuroscientificandethicaldebatearoundtheamericanacademyofneurologybraindeathcriteria
AT verheijdejosephl frameworkforrevisitingbraindeathevaluatingawarenessandattitudestowardtheneuroscientificandethicaldebatearoundtheamericanacademyofneurologybraindeathcriteria
AT butterfieldrichardj frameworkforrevisitingbraindeathevaluatingawarenessandattitudestowardtheneuroscientificandethicaldebatearoundtheamericanacademyofneurologybraindeathcriteria